Vimeo wins Church United case testing Section 230, law protecting tech platforms

A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that the video-hosting platform Vimeo is immune from a lawsuit alleging discrimination on the basis of religion and sexual orientation because of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Section 230 is a hotly debated provision that provides legal liability protections for tech platforms, which federal lawmakers have sought to change. Democratic and Republican lawmakers have proposed altering Section 230 to resolve a wide range of policy problems from alleged anti-conservative bias at Big Tech companies to drug crime.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit’s decision shows how Section 230 functions when the users of tech platforms attempt to challenge those companies’ actions.

According to the court, Vimeo removed the account of Church United, which was founded by James Domen, who has said he identifies as a “former homosexual” and attributes his identity change to his Christian faith.

Church United uploaded nearly 90 videos and utilized a paid account on Vimeo before the tech company took action against Church United in 2018. Vimeo told Church United to remove videos that promote sexual orientation change efforts because the videos violate Vimeo policy or the company would remove the videos and the account.

After Vimeo removed its content, Mr. Domen and Church United took Vimeo to federal court and lost. They appealed the loss to a federal appeals court, and they lost again Thursday before a three-judge panel.

“While lively debate on whether and how best to regulate interactive computer service platforms is ongoing, and experts, consumers, and businesses continue to propose a variety of solutions, Section 230 remains the governing statute,” wrote Judge Rosemary S. Pooler. “Moreover, its impact on this case is clear. Pursuant to Section 230(c)(2), Vimeo is free to restrict access to material that, in good faith, it finds objectionable.”

Judge Pooler’s decision made clear that Vimeo’s action was not an outlier but instead was the “fundamental purpose” of Section 230.

“Although Appellants take issue with Vimeo’s deletion of Church United’s entire account as opposed to deleting only those videos promoting [sexual orientation change efforts], nothing within the statute or related case law suggests that this took Vimeo’s actions outside of the scope of [Section 230] subsection (c)(2) immunity,” read the court’s opinion. “Indeed, Vimeo warned Church United that removal of the entire account was exactly what might happen if they ignored the warning. Church United received the warning and did not take the videos down or otherwise allay Vimeo’s concerns.”

As Congress considers whether to modify Section 230 or scrap it entirely, litigation and decisions such as the opinion from the federal appeals court Thursday are likely to play a role in lawmakers’ actions.

The debate over Section 230 has crept into several different policy areas, but it figures to feature prominently at hearing with the CEOs of Facebook, Google and Twitter later this month in the House.